Jack Iyerak Anawak

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, do you know what the problem is? The problem is we are too much of a me, me, me society, rather than we, we, we. We should be looking after the interests of Canadian people as a whole. Instead, what is happening with the gun control lobby is "You're going to take away my right to have a firearm". This is not a right; it is a privilege to have a firearm.

A little bit of inconvenience in registering a rifle should be no big deal. I really do not have a problem with the registration.

By the way, I should also thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to speak Inuktitut earlier.

It is too much of a me, me, me society, rather than one that considers what is good for the country. I would like the members from Reform to support us on the issue of a non-derogation clause. Yesterday they did not support us after the hon. member for Crowfoot said: "I find it unacceptable that the government will make agreements with our aboriginal people and then violate those agreements. This is unacceptable. What's the purpose of the agreement and where is the honour in the agreement if it's simply going to be violated? No wonder the aboriginal people come forward. I admire your patience. I can't get over your patience in the face of this kind of treatment". This was from the member for Crowfoot. Then last night he voted against a non-derogation clause, which recognizes our rights under section 35 of the Constitution.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

The proposals contained in this bill have generated a lot of discussion throughout the country. A lot of misinformation is out there. I will use my time to dispel some of that misinforma-

tion, particularly as it affects my constituency and the people I represent. I will tell this House what I have been telling the Inuit hunters in my constituency.

No hunter is going to kill one less caribou or one less seal on account of this bill. I know that. The ability and right of the Inuit to hunt will still be there under the provisions of this bill. It will always be there.

No piece of legislation can take away the Inuit way of life. This bill does not take away the Inuit way of life, nor can anything else unless the Inuit themselves choose to let it go. That way of life is protected in the Nunavut land claims agreement and in the Constitution of Canada.

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of the land and all the other laws of Canada have to be consistent with the Constitution. Section 35 of the Constitution states:

1. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1), "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

Article 2 of the Nunavut land claims agreement is clear on the constitutional status of the agreement. It states: "The agreement shall be a land claims agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982".

Mr. Speaker, the most basic aboriginal and treaty rights are the rights to hunt, trap and fish for sustenance. While there are many disagreements between aboriginal peoples and government on the exact scope and content of all aboriginal and treaty rights, there is at least agreement on harvesting rights. There is no question that aboriginal and treaty rights include hunting, fishing and trapping rights. Even the courts have said so.

Harvesting is central to the aboriginal way of life. It is at the heart of our being, who we are, who we have been, and who we want to be. We do not want to lose our connection with the land. It has sustained us for thousands of years. It has kept us alive. It sustains us still.

Most Inuit and most other aboriginal people who live in remote communities still make a living from the land. It is a proud thing and an honourable thing for us to go out on the land and come home with food for our families and neighbours. That is why there is such worry in aboriginal communities about this bill. There is a deep fear that the bill is affecting our core identity and will take away our ability to buy, possess and use firearms. Some people have been exploiting that fear. I want to address this issue now.

The government is well aware that aboriginal and treaty hunting and trapping rights exist. Some very specific provisions exist in these agreements concerning these rights.

For example, the Nunavut land claim agreement has a whole chapter on wildlife. That chapter recognizes that Inuit are traditional and current users of wildlife and that the legal rights of Inuit to harvest wildlife flow from their traditional and current use.

Under the Nunavut land claim agreement a wildlife management system has been created that reflects the traditional and current levels, patterns and character of Inuit harvesting and avoids unnecessary interference in the exercise of the rights, priorities and privileges to harvest. Subject to the terms of the chapter, an Inuk with proper identification may harvest up to his or her adjusted basic needs level without any form of licence or permit and without imposition of any form of tax or fee.

In addition, the agreement states that where there is any inconsistency or conflict between any federal, territorial and local government laws and the agreement, the agreement shall prevail.

Those provisions in the Nunavut land claim agreement offer protection. Other land claim agreements offer similar protection.

It will be necessary for the government to work out with aboriginal peoples an accommodation between existing aboriginal and treaty harvesting rights and the provisions of Bill C-68. There must be discussions, there must be consultations. There must be a dialogue so the various provisions can be reconciled and integrated. The government knows this and intends to carry out these essential discussions.

For this reason, the government put section 110(t) into Bill C-68. Section 110(t) says the governor in council, or cabinet, can make regulations, and I quote:

Respecting the manner in which any provision of this Act or the regulations applies to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and adapting any such provision for the purposes of that application.

This section recognizes that the government and aboriginal peoples have to work together to implement this bill in ways that are respectful of and sensitive to aboriginal and treaty rights. These discussions will occur. There will be opportunities for aboriginal peoples to have a say in implementation.

By the way, aboriginal peoples should know that both the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois tried to remove this clause from the bill during the committee hearings.

During the committee hearings on this bill, aboriginal representatives asked for something more than section 110(t). Some groups, like the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Grand Council

of the Crees of Quebec, specifically requested the inclusion of a non-derogation clause.

I am very pleased to say that the minister and the government responded positively to this request. The minister has brought in an amendment to Bill C-68 that adds a non-derogation clause to the bill. It reads like this:

For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

While the government's position is that the bill does not abrogate aboriginal and treaty rights, this non-derogation clause has been included in the bill to provide greater reassurance. I pushed for this amendment and I thank the Minister of Justice for responding.

The minister and the government have also made another very important change to Bill C-68. It is a change that I also pushed for and it affects the lending provisions of the bill.

When the bill was drafted initially, it stated that when someone loaned a firearm to another person the registration certificate for the firearm had to be loaned along with the firearm. I expressed my concerns to the minister about this provision. Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups who appeared before the justice committee also raised the lending provision as an issue. They talked about the impracticality of lending a registration certificate along with a firearm when someone is out on the land hunting for food.

Again, the minister and the government responded to the concern. The amendment made to the bill by the minister removes the requirement to transfer the registration certificate along with the firearm when the firearm is being loaned to someone who will be hunting for sustenance purposes.

This is a practical change. The government is acknowledging a way of life in rural and remote communities. Lending firearms is a common occurrence in the north, where I come from. Lending your firearm in the north is as common as lending a lawnmower to your neighbour or borrowing a cup of sugar from your neighbour in the southern parts of Canada. In northern communities, when your neighbour needs something you have in order to put food on the table, you help out in whatever way you can. Sometimes you lend your skidoo, sometimes gas, and sometimes your gun.

The change the minister has made to the lending provisions of the bill responds to the very real circumstances of all sustenance hunters, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. It is a positive change and I welcome it and I thank the minister for his consideration.

There are some other issues related to the bill that will need to be addressed and worked out between the federal government, the government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal peoples.

The firearms safety training course has to recognize northern circumstances. In the north it must reflect and be adapted to the northern reality. Accommodation should be made for the aboriginal languages. I encourage both the federal and territorial governments to continue working on this matter.

The issue of traditional gun giving is also one I am sure will be addressed in discussions between government and aboriginal representatives.

I am confident these issues can be worked out satisfactorily. Reasonable people working together in a spirit of good will can sort these things out.

I support this bill. It is better now following the committee hearings and report stage. Many changes have been made to the bill to improve it.

I had some concerns, which the minister has gone a long way to address. Protections for the Inuit way of life are contained in the Nunavut land claims agreement and the Constitution of Canada. The bill contains a clause that says the government will discuss with Inuit how the bill is to be implemented in Inuit communities. Our communities will be able to have their own firearms officers. Sustenance hunting is recognized in the bill and we are doubly protected now with the addition of the clause that says that nothing in the bill can take away or limit aboriginal and treaty hunting rights.

I have never had any problem with the principles of this bill. I have no problem with gun registration. I am a hunter. I am an aboriginal hunter. I am not afraid of registering my firearms. I may experience some inconvenience with registration, but I support the principles underlying it.

The overriding objective of gun registration is public safety. I am prepared to do my part.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

A lot of my constituents are out camping now because school is over for the summer. They will not wait around for someone to come along and say: "Here is my registration certificate. There is a polar bear coming so you better come and get your rifle or lend me your rifle". There has to be an understanding on the issue of lending. This applies to all sustenance hunters whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal.

The motion will benefit all hunters and trappers because it recognizes that there is a different way of doing things in the rural areas. I strongly support the motion and urge the House to support it.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

It is an insult to the people of Canada that some people would not agree with our speaking our own language when the Inuktitut language in Canada is 4,000 years old and the English and French languages are mere hundreds of years old.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

My comments will be on Motion No. 54, the lending provisions.

I would like to thank Atima Hadlari for lending me his shotgun yesterday to go out hunting in Cambridge Bay for geese and ducks. He was very nice about it. I know him very well. He offered me the use of his .12 gauge shotgun and I obliged.

Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups who appeared before the justice committee expressed concerns about the lending provisions of Bill C-68. They talked about the impracticality of lending a registration certificate along with a firearm when someone is out on the land hunting for food, which we were doing just a little over 24 hours ago in Cambridge Bay.

This is an issue of concern in my riding of Nunatsiaq. The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec, the Council for Yukon Indians and representatives of the Government of the Northwest Territories all expressed similar concerns. Again, the minister and the government have responded to the concern. I express my thanks to the minister for listening.

Motion No. 54 is a practical one. It would remove the requirement to transfer the registration certificate along with the firearm when the firearm is being loaned to someone who will be hunting for sustenance purposes.

All of the Inuit in my riding hunt for food. They may supplement it with food from the Bay, the co-op and other stores. We do not have grocery stores as such; we have department stores. They may supplement the food they get from hunting with food from the stores, but they all hunt.

I was in my hometown of Repulse Bay two weeks ago. I went caribou hunting and got a caribou. I was in Baker Lake a week after that. People there depend on caribou. Everyone depends on the caribou they hunt. As I said, a little over 24 hours ago I was in Cambridge Bay. There because they hunt for food, they are always concerned about their neighbours, their friends or whoever else may lack hunting equipment, whether it is a snowmobile, a rifle, or gas. They lend hunting equipment to their neighbours, their relatives, their sons, their daughters or whomever. Lending firearms is a common occurrence. In the north it is as common as lending a lawnmower or a cup of sugar to a next door neighbour.

In doing this the government is acknowledging that we have a way of life which includes lending whatever we have to our neighbours, sons, daughters or whomever; our firearms in this case.

It is with deep appreciation to the minister that I support Motion No. 54, knowing that he has listened to my ongoing concern about that portion of the bill and knowing that he has understood that it is a special case.

[Indian Affairs, June 12th, 1995]

If the parties agree to ask the minister of Indian and northern affairs or me to come and help resolve the issue, we are prepared to do so.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the amendment put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. This clause was recommended by most of the aboriginal groups that came to the justice committee during its hearings on Bill C-68. Some specific recommendations were made by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec to include a non-derogation clause in the bill.

While the government's position is that the bill does not abrogate or derogate from aboriginal and treaty rights, aboriginal people want greater assurance and comfort.

Aboriginal groups are happy the government and the minister have responded. I thank the aboriginal witnesses for this suggestion. I express my deep appreciation to the minister for listening and responding to these concerns.

I am sure we will have the support of the Reform Party. I will quote the hon. member for Crowfoot who quite clearly said during one of the hearings that the support is there from the Reform Party: "I find it unacceptable that the government will make agreements with our aboriginal people and then violate those agreements. This is unacceptable. What is the purpose of the agreement and where is the honour of the agreement if it is simply to be violated? No wonder the aboriginal people come forward. I admire your patience. I cannot get over your patience in the face of this kind of treatment".

It is quite clear that when the aboriginal people of Canada want a non-derogation clause in the gun control bill the Reform Party will be with us all the way on this issue. It would not want the Government of Canada to break its treaties with the aboriginal people who have negotiated land claims and treaties over the past number of years.

I am glad this amendment has been put forward. I am sure members of this House will find that this amendment is acceptable to all, that it will address the needs and that it recognizes and acknowledges the special place aboriginal people have in this country.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly agree the situation is any worse since we have come to power. I should know. I go to my riding as much as I can and I go to other

aboriginal areas in Canada. There is still a lot of work to be done but conditions have been improving on reserves.

I refer to the comments we got from Chief Ralph Caribou of Pukatawagan, Manitoba:

I am very happy to report that the skin problems amongst our people have decreased considerably this spring.

That is because of the water and sewage program introduced in Pukatawagan. Conditions are improving. There is a lot of work to be done and we are doing it.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

I thank the member for the question. Because of the riding he represents, the hon. member is as aware as I am of the high cost of food in the north.

I have been assigned the task of looking at the food mail program. I am to report back to the minister of Indian and northern affairs and the Minister of Health by the fall. I will be assisted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health who probably knows more about the nutritional values of fruits and vegetables, et cetera, than I do. I know the nutritional values of meat. If anyone wants to know about the nutritional values of meat, I can expound on that.

When I was sitting on the other side of the House the government of the day decided to slash that program, to eliminate it over a period of years. There was a cut in the last year but I think it is being sustained until the review is finished.

I assure the member that during the review we want to see how we can improve it. I will be seeking the member's comments on this. We know that money is very hard to come by today, but we want to see how we can improve the program so that we can stretch it out further to the people who have the highest cost of living anywhere in Canada and perhaps anywhere in the world.

I am sure members have heard me expound on the high cost of food in the north. A litre of milk costs $5 and a loaf of bread costs $3.95. There has to be a way to reflect the needs of the people in the north on how best to ensure that they get nutritional food.

As the hon. member is well aware, and we have been expounding on it, the north has to be considered at the same level as the west, the east or central Canada. Therefore the services the people in the west and the east are used to should be available in the north, whether food or other services such as those of doctors, nurses, teachers and so on.

I thank the hon. member. I will be seeking his comments as well, because of the area he represents, on how to improve the particular problem.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker,

For my colleagues who do not understand Inuktitut, I will elaborate.

I am pleased to rise today to speak on the government's 1995-96 main estimates. When the government was elected one and one-half years ago, we said we would do things differently and we are doing things differently.

The government's main estimates for this fiscal year reflect a tough budget but a necessary budget. They also reflect the results of the program review announced in the 1994 budget. The purpose of the program review was to ensure the government's diminished resources are directed to the highest priority requirements and to those areas where the federal government is best placed to deliver services.

The government is clarifying its responsibilities. We are also reshaping federal government programs so we spend less but provide the best possible service to Canadians within the limits of need and affordability.

We are restraining spending, streamlining operations and changing what government does and how its programs are delivered. We are committed to reducing the deficit and meeting our fiscal targets. We are committed to improving the economic climate so more jobs can be created.

We are focusing on the essential responsibilities: reducing federal and provincial overlap; using technology to become more efficient; promoting self-reliance; recovering more of our costs; and merging programs which are similar in nature for more efficiency. Tough decisions have been made and more tough decisions will be made.

Public sector jobs have been cut. Some programs are being amalgamated; some programs have been cut and some have been eliminated. For the remaining programs and services, the government is seeking new and cost effective ways to deliver them. Because we have to live within our means, we must get rid of inefficient or ineffective programs so we can focus our energies where they are most needed.

I want to stress that the government is committed to ensuring that Canada's most needy do not bear the brunt of deficit reduction measures.

Among the most needy Canadians are the aboriginal people. It is a fact that the socioeconomic conditions in most Indian and Inuit communities are the poorest in the country. The government is committed to assisting aboriginal peoples to overcome the disparities in living conditions with other Canadians.

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been impacted by the budget and program review but not as much as other departments. DIAND positions will be reduced from 300 from the 1995-96 base of 3,237. The reductions will occur at all levels of the department. This is in addition to 442 positions eliminated in 1994-95.

The northern affairs program will be reduced by $15 million over the next three years. Regional economic development programming will be reduced in 1995 one year ahead of its original sunset date. I have to say that the cut to regional economic development programming is a painful one for the north. To create the jobs and opportunities the north needs, economic development is crucial. We have to keep working in this area to further northern development.

Social housing is another area of great need in the north. The last Conservative budget eliminated funding for new social housing construction. So far financial reality has prevented a major reversal of that budget's impact on social housing.

I continue to be deeply concerned about the poor housing conditions in the Nunatsiaq riding and throughout the north. I know that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is also concerned as is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I will continue to encourage the government to do what it can to help resolve the north's housing problems.

The budget and main estimates for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development confirm that DIAND will maintain its core roles and responsibilities to Indian and Inuit people, such as education and social assistance. Increases to the Indian and Inuit programs will provide funding for basic services such as elementary and secondary education, social services, construction and maintenance of schools and infrastructure such as water and sewage improvement.

Overall however in light of the government's serious fiscal situation, DIAND's funding will be moderated. It will increase, but not as much as in previous years. Funding for Indian and Inuit programming will increase 6 per cent in 1995-96 and 3 per cent in 1996-97 and 1997-98. The moderated growth is a balance between the need to make changes to reduce the deficit and the need to protect those who need assistance most.

There should be no misunderstanding on this point. The aboriginal people of Canada are the poorest people of Canada. The aboriginal population is also Canada's fastest growing population. The aboriginal population is growing at more than twice the rate of the Canadian population.

The aboriginal population is also a very young population. Over 40 per cent are under the age of 25 and the need for housing, education, and social services are great. While improvements have been made over the years in community conditions and individual circumstances, the fact remains as I said earlier that aboriginal social and economic conditions still remain significantly below those of other Canadians.

There is still much work to be done. This government will not abandon aboriginal people. We are continuing to work on the fair and expeditious settlement of land claims. We are investing additional funds in post-secondary education. Education and economic wherewithal through a secure land and resources base are necessary tools for jobs and development and for building healthier and stronger communities.

The government will work with aboriginal people and all Canadians to improve our financial situation, to create opportunities and jobs and build a stronger country.